Quotation Errors Research Articles

Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background. Quotations and references are an indispensable element of scientific communication. They should support what authors claim or provide important background information for readers. Studies indicate, however, that quotations not serving their purpose—quotation errors—may be prevalent.Methods. We carried out a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of quotation errors, taking account of differences between studies in error ascertainment.Results. Out of 559 studies screened we included 28 in the main analysis, and estimated major, minor and total quotation error rates of 11,9%, 95% CI [8.4, 16.6] 11.5% [8.3, 15.7], and 25.4% [19.5, 32.4]. While heterogeneity was substantial, even the lowest estimate of total quotation errors was considerable (6.7%). Indirect references accounted for less than one sixth of all quotation problems. The findings remained robust in a number of sensitivity and subgroup analyses (including risk of bias analysis) and in meta-regression. There was no indication of publication bias.Conclusions. Readers of medical journal articles should be aware of the fact that quotation errors are common. Measures against quotation errors include spot checks by editors and reviewers, correct placement of citations in the text, and declarations by authors that they have checked cited material. Future research should elucidate if and to what degree quotation errors are detrimental to scientific progress.

Comments on “Synthesis and Adsorption of Ni(II) on Ni(II)-Imprinted Polyaniline Supported on Attapulgite Modified with 3-Methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane”

Recently, Xu et al. (2013) published the paper entitled “Synthesis and adsorption of Ni(II) on Ni(II)-imprinted polyaniline supported on attapulgite modified with 3-methacryloxypropyltrimeth oxysilane.” In the “Adsorption Kinetics Models” section of the original paper, the authors had mentioned that “The formulas of the two kinetic models (the pseudo-first-order and pseudosecond-order kinetic models) are given as follows:” and cited a secondary material (Radeva et al. 2008) as a reference. However, there is nothing about pseudo-first-order and pseudo-second-order kinetic models in the cited reference Radeva et al. (2008). This is a quotation error. In addition, the correct volume of the reference Radeva et al. (2008) is ‘26’ not ‘7’ as mentioned in the original paper, which is a citation error. It is worth stating that “Citing the original paper not only respects the work of the authors who presented a novel research idea but also discussed this idea in detail in the body of their paper” (Ho 2010). In addition, typical isotherms such as BET (Brunauer et al. 1938), Langmuir (1918) and Freundlich (1906) all witnessed increased trends in citations especially in the last two decades (Fu and Ho 2014; Ho and Kahn 2014). In the case of pseudo-second-order kinetic model, the authors presented a linear form as follows:

The qualitative problem of major quotation errors, as illustrated by 10 different examples in the headache literature.

There are two types of errors when references are used in the scientific literature: citation errors and quotation errors, and these errors have in reviews mainly been evaluated quantitatively. Quotation errors are the major problem, and 1 review reported 6% major quotation errors. The objective of this listing of quotation errors is to illustrate by qualitative analysis of different types of 10 major quotation errors how and possibly why authors misquote references. The author selected for review the first 10 different consecutive major quotation errors encountered from his reading of the headache literature. The characteristics of the 10 quotation errors ranged considerably. Thus, in a review of migraine therapy in a very prestigious medical journal, the superiority of a new treatment (sumatriptan) vs an old treatment (aspirin plus metoclopramide) was claimed despite no significant difference for the primary efficacy measure in the trial. One author, in a scientific debate, referred to the lack of dilation of the middle meningeal artery in spontaneous migraine despite the fact that only 1 migraine attack was studied. The possibility for creative major quotation errors in the medical literature is most likely infinite. Qualitative evaluations, as the present, of major quotation errors will hopefully result in more general awareness of quotation problems in the medical literature. Even if the final responsibility for correct use of quotations is with the authors, the referees, the experts with the knowledge needed to spot quotation errors, should be more involved in ensuring correct and fair use of references. Finally, this paper suggests that major misleading quotations, if pointed out by readers of the journal, should, as a rule, be corrected by way of an erratum statement.

Comments on “Elimination of Bisphenol A from Water <em>via</em> Graphene Oxide Adsorption”

Xu and Zhu published the paper entitled“Elimination of Bisphenol A from Water via Graphene Oxide Adsorption”. In section of 3.2 BPA adsorption kinetics, authors stated that “The pseudo-first- order model”and cited Blanchard et al. to be a reference. There is nothing about the pseudo- first- order model in the reference. It is a quotation error. The Lagergren rate equation presented in 1898, is a first order model. Basically, the rate of a reaction is defined as the change in concentration of a reactant or product per unit time. Concentrations of products do not appear in the rate law because the reaction rate is studied under conditions where the reverse reactions do not contribute to the overall rate. The reaction order and rate constant must be determined by experiments. In order to distinguish the kinetic equation based on the concentration of a solution from the adsorption capacity of solids, this Lagergren first order rate equation has been called a pseudo-first-order one. In addition, regression of pseudo-first-order kinetic model in Fig.1 would not be possible.

Using of “pseudo-second-order model” in adsorption

A research paper's contribution exists not only in its originality and creativity but also in its continuity and development for research that follows. However, the author easily ignores it. Citation error and quotation error occurred very frequently in a scientific paper. Numerous researchers use secondary references without knowing the original idea from authors. Sulaymon et al. (Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:3011-3023, 2013) and Spiridon et al. (Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:6367-6381, 2013) presented wrong pseudo-second-order models in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 20. This comment pointed the errors of the kinetic models and offered information for citing original idea of pseudo-second-order kinetic expression. In order to stop the proliferation of the mistake, it is suggested to cite the original paper for the kinetic model which provided greater accuracy and more details about the kinetic expression.

Accuracy of Citation and Quotation in Foot and Ankle Surgery Journals

A recent review of technical editing of research suggests that over one third of references cited in articles in medical journals have some inaccuracies and one fifth of quotations to references in these articles are not accurate. Two hundred and forty-nine citation references and 408 quotes from 25 articles published in 5 orthopaedic journals were randomly selected to determine referencing accuracy. The presence of citation errors was examined by 1 of the authors while the presence of quotation errors was determined by 2 of the authors. Full copies of articles as well as the references were obtained to compare the accuracies. The total citation error rate was 41% (103 out of 249 references), and the total quotation error rate was 20% (80 out of 408 quotes) for the 5 orthopaedic journals. Citation and quotation errors were still relatively common in orthopaedic journals. While we did not identify any factors associated with citation and quotation errors, the use of technical editing may reduce the amount of citation errors. Readers and authors should be aware that many citations of studies are inaccurate and one should review the original source if it is to be used in another publication or to guide clinical treatment.

As Well as Proper Citation, References in Biomedical Articles Should Be Accurate

I read with interest the Editorial by Professor Izet Masic on the importance of reference citation in biomedical articles (1). I acknowledge the importance of properly crediting authors of published articles in peer-reviewed journals in order for that journal’s impact factor and also for the author’s H-index. However, I feel that the Editorial has overlooked an important factor in proper reference citation, namely the accuracy of references in the medical and biomedical literature. Many studies on reference accuracy have been done in the biomedical literature with reports of 4.1% to 40.3% of reference inaccuracies in leading medical journals (2). The last Cochrane review of 66 published studies of reference accuracy in 2008 showed a median citation error rate of 38% (3). Apart from problems in locating the cited journal article if a major reference element, such as year of publication or authors names, is erroneous; is that cited authors are not credited with citation to their article thus potentially affecting their H-index. The H-index nowadays is a major factor in academic promotions. Of course, apart from correct reference citation, it is important for the cited literature to be accurately quoted. The Cochrane review also showed a medium quotation error rate of 20% (3).

The Virtues of Correct Citation

Scientific statements have to be supported by evidence. The usual way to do this in academic articles is by citing the literature—that is, by giving references. A reference citation is supposed to provide accurate underpinning for a statement and to represent the current state of research, or, in the case of a maverick opinion, to ensure it is recognizable as such. Reference to a published source allows the reader to probe more deeply into the subject and puts him or her in a position to judge the underlying evidence. Using references puts the author under a duty to formulate them precisely so as to reproduce the source publication accurately. The convention of reference citation is a constituent element of scientific texts; it distinguishes them from journalism and other forms of writing and gives their content a particular authority. The majority of readers will have more confidence in a referenced statement than in one without a reference, even without checking it. The choice and placing of references, however, are complex processes prone to error. The following mistakes can appear: The source does not support the statement, or does so only partially (“quotation errors”). The reference citation is placed in such a way that it is not clear which statement it relates to. The bibliographic data (authors, title, volume number, page numbers, or journal title) are incomplete or wrong (“citation errors”). This can make it difficult or impossible to find the source. Quotation errors are particularly problematic because it is difficult to spot them: Often the reader can only judge the accuracy of a reference if he or she has relevant specialist knowledge or takes the trouble to research the sources cited. Another form of referencing error, which will not be treated here, is plagiarism: In this case the source of information is knowingly suppressed and the statement is presented as the plagiarizing author’s own intellectual achievement (1).

Reply to the Comments on “Preparation and application of 4-amino-4′-nitroazobenzene modified chitosan as a selective adsorbent for the determination of Au(III) and Pd(II)”

We have read the comments on our recent paper “Preparation and application of 4-amino-4′-nitro azobenzene modified chitosan as a selective adsorbent for the determination of Au(III) and Pd(II)” [1]. The expression “h 1⁄4 k2qe” in section “Adsorption kinetics” was mentioned without any citations. Indeed, the definition and expression of initial adsorption rate (original rate) have been presented by Dr. Ho [2], and widely applied in the sorption systems. We should have cited the original paper of Dr. Ho [3, 4]. However, we found that such an expression was presented without any citations in many papers. For example, in the papers of Ramesh A et al. [5] and Gunay A et al. [6], this expression was presented with no citations, either. Therefore, we thought it should be recognized by general admission and might be used without indicating its original contributors. Frankly speaking, it was not our intention to ignore these references. In addition, we appreciate that Dr. Ho pointed out our quotation errors. We should cite the papers of Blanchard G et al. [7] and Ho [2, 4] for pseudosecond-order kinetic equation. This equation can be well used to deal with the experimental data. In our paper, this model was brought to discuss the adsorption process. The adsorption process was mentioned in the papers of Atia AA [8] and Merrifield JD et al. [9]. We will be more careful in our future research work. Many thanks to Dr. Ho for his comments.

Reference Accuracy in Peer-Reviewed Pediatric Orthopaedic Literature

Reference accuracy of articles published in the biomedical literature is determined by the presence of citation and quotation errors. A recent review demonstrated that the median citation error rate per biomedical journal was 39%, and the median quotation error rate per journal was 20%. Reference accuracy in pediatric orthopaedic articles has not been previously reported, to our knowledge. Two hundred references from twenty articles published in four peer-reviewed orthopaedic journals were randomly selected for assessment of citation and quotation accuracy. Full-text copies of all original references were obtained by interlibrary loan methods and reviewed directly to establish citation accuracy. The presence of citation errors was determined by a single investigator. The relevance of citation errors was determined by assessing the ease of reference retrieval through PubMed. Quotation accuracy was determined by two examiners who reviewed each of the twenty articles and 200 references to compare the claims made for the references in the article against the data and opinions expressed in the actual reference. The total citation error rate across all of the journals was 26% (fifty-one of 200 references) with a 95% confidence interval of 16.5% to 37.3%. The median citation error rate per journal was 27% (range, 10% to 38%). Although citation errors were common, most were of minimal significance, as 196 of the 200 references could be retrieved with ease from PubMed. The total quotation error rate across all of the articles was 38% (152 of 398 reference citations) with a 95% confidence interval of 30.1% to 47.0%. The median quotation error rate per journal was 38% (range, 28% to 46%). Citation and quotation errors are common in the pediatric orthopaedic literature. Reference accuracy continues to be a substantial problem in the biomedical literature despite recent technological advances such as online databases, easily accessible search engines, and widely available bibliographic software.

Comments on using of “pseudo-second-order rate equation” in Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Volume 283

Accuracy of referencing is important for the transmission of scientific knowledge. However, an unacceptable rate of citation and quotation errors has been found in the literature [1, 2]. Greater emphasis and responsibility must be placed on authors to check the accuracy of cited references in their submitted manuscripts [2]. In Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Volume 283, two articles, entitled ‘‘influence of contact time, pH, soil humic/ fulvic acids, ionic strength and temperature on sorption of U(VI) onto MX-80 bentonite’’ [3] and ‘‘effect of pH, fulvic acid and temperature on sorption of Th(IV) on zirconium oxophosphate’’ [4], presented a ‘‘pseudo-second-order rate equation,’’ but cited 2 and 3 secondary material, respectively, as references. In these two articles, the authors presented the ‘‘pseudosecond-order rate equation’’ with equation t qt 1⁄4 1 2kqe þ t qe while in fact, the definition of the equation for the adsorption systems of divalent metal ions using sphagnum moss peat has been presented by Ho [5], and this expression has also been published in 1996 [6]. A modified equation was presented in 1998 to correct a mistake in the previous paper published in 1996 [7, 8]. Two most suggested papers for the pseudo-second-order kinetic equation were published in 1984 and 1995 by Blanchard et al. [10] and Ho [5, 9], respectively. Blanchard et al. noticed the overall exchange reaction of NH4 ? ions fixed in zeolite by divalent metallic ions in the solution using a second-order kinetic model 1 n0 n ð Þ a 1⁄4 Kt where n is amount of M 2? fixed or the amount of NH4 ? released at each instant, n0 is exchange capacity, and K is rate constant [10]. Ho used the pseudo-second-order kinetic model to the divalent metal ions/sphagnum moss peat adsorption system. The adsorption involved not only cation exchange but also chemical bonding [5, 11]. The pseudo-second-order kinetic model

Comments on “Preparation and application of 4-amino-4′-nitro azobenzene modified chitosan as a selective adsorbent for the determination of Au(III) and Pd(II)”

Recently, Wang et al. published the paper entitled “preparation and application of 4-amino-4′-nitro azobenzene modified chitosan as a selective adsorbent for the determination of Au(III) and Pd(II)” [1]. In section “Adsorption kinetics”, the authors presented the term “original rate” as “h stands for original rate of reaction which can be defined as h 1⁄4 k2qe .” without any citations. In fact, the definition of initial adsorption rate (original rate) for the adsorption systems of divalent metal ions using sphagnum moss peat has been presented by Ho [2], and this expression has also been published in 1996 [3]. A modified initial adsorption rate has been presented in 1998 to correct a mistake that was included in the previous paper published in 1996 [4–6]. These papers should be cited. Another quotation error is that the authors cited Atia [7] and Merrifield et al. [8] regarding the pseudo-secondorder kinetic equation while nothing about “the pseudosecond-order kinetic equation” was mentioned in these two references. Two most suggested papers for the pseudosecond-order kinetic equation were published in 1984 and 1995 by Blanchard et al. [9] and Ho [2, 6], respectively. Blanchard et al. noted the overall exchange reaction of NH4 + ions fixed in zeolite by divalent metallic ions in the solution using a second-order kinetic model [9]. Ho used the pseudo-second-order kinetic model to the copper ion/peat adsorption system. The adsorption involved not only cation exchange but also chemical bonding [2]. When a scientific publication duplicate previously published idea, text, equations, or figures without any citations, it frequently is regarded as a sign of possible plagiarism [10]. To avoid being misconstrued, as well as to provide more accurate information, I would suggest that the authors cite the original paper for the initial adsorption rate.

Accuracy of references in burns journals

Aims To study the incidence and risk factors for citation and quotation errors in two major burns surgery journals. Methods 120 references were randomly selected from original articles published in the following two journals – January to December 2006 issues of Burns and Journal of Burn Care & Research. For each reference, the ease of retrieval on PubMed and the presence of citation errors were noted. Two independent observers analysed each reference for quotation errors. The characteristics of the root article, that is, type of study, author numbers, number of references and article word count were noted. Results Of the 120 selected references, 117 referred to articles from indexed medical journals published in English. Among these, 4 articles could not be retrieved due to fatal citation errors (3.3%). A further 12 citation errors were noted giving a total citation error rate of 13.3% (95% CI: 6.74–19.93%). Of the 117 references analysed, the quotation error rate was 13.7% (95% CI: 8.6–19.5%) half of which were major errors. There was no significant association between the combined error rate per article and the journal (Kruskal–Wallis test; p = 0.861, type of study (Kruskal–Wallis test; p = 0.717), author numbers (Spearman's ρ = 0.197, p = 0.423), article length (Spearman's ρ = 0.118, p = 0.705) or references per article (Spearman's ρ = 0.229, p = 0.189). Conclusion Significant numbers of citation and quotation errors still appear in current burns literature. Incorrect spelling of author names and partial omissions of article titles were the two most common errors. No observable underlying factors were identified in this study. The present results serve as a reminder to authors, editors and peer reviewers for more care of citation accuracy when striving for their common goal of scientific excellence.

Comments on “Adsorption of direct dyes from aqueous solutions by carbon nanotubes: Determination of equilibrium, kinetics and thermodynamics parameters”

Two most suggested papers for pseudo-second-order kinetic model were published in 1984 and 1995 by Blanchard et al. and Ho, respectively. Blanchard et al. noted the overall exchange reaction of NH + 4 ions fixed in zeolite by divalent metallic ions in the solution using a second-order kinetic model. Ho used the pseudo-second-order kinetic model to the copper ion/peat adsorption system. The adsorption involved chemical bonding and cation exchange. In this comment citation error and quotation error were pointed.

Accuracy of references cited in articles published in indian journal of dermatology, venereology and leprology: A pilot study

Progress in science takes place when investigators build on the work of others. Therefore, in scientific communications, it is very important that others' work is correctly noted and understood. Cited references have been found to be inaccurate in every journal in which they have been examined. To analyze references cited in articles published in Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology for their citation and quotation precision as an indicator of the quality of articles. Twelve citation and five quotation errors were identified and defined. Fifty cited references were selected randomly from the May-June 2008 issue of the journal. For these citations, we obtained 44 full texts of papers and two abstracts. In one case, only citation errors could be verified from the Internet. Three citations of books could not be verified. Thus, citation errors were examined in 47 and quotation errors in 46 citations. Thirteen cited references (28.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 15.3-41.3%) were error-free. Twenty-eight citations (59.6%; 95% CI 45.5-73.6%) contained citation errors and 20 (43.5%; 95% CI 29.2-57.8%) quotation errors. RESULTS of this pilot study suggest that improving accuracy of the references is important. Solutions to this problem are suggested.

Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals.

Most journals try to improve their articles by technical editing processes such as proof-reading, editing to conform to 'house styles', grammatical conventions and checking accuracy of cited references. Despite the considerable resources devoted to technical editing, we do not know whether it improves the accessibility of biomedical research findings or the utility of articles. This is an update of a Cochrane methodology review first published in 2003. To assess the effects of technical editing on research reports in peer-reviewed biomedical journals, and to assess the level of accuracy of references to these reports. We searched The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007; MEDLINE (last searched July 2006); EMBASE (last searched June 2007) and checked relevant articles for further references. We also searched the Internet and contacted researchers and experts in the field. Prospective or retrospective comparative studies of technical editing processes applied to original research articles in biomedical journals, as well as studies of reference accuracy. Two review authors independently assessed each study against the selection criteria and assessed the methodological quality of each study. One review author extracted the data, and the second review author repeated this. We located 32 studies addressing technical editing and 66 surveys of reference accuracy. Only three of the studies were randomised controlled trials. A 'package' of largely unspecified editorial processes applied between acceptance and publication was associated with improved readability in two studies and improved reporting quality in another two studies, while another study showed mixed results after stricter editorial policies were introduced. More intensive editorial processes were associated with fewer errors in abstracts and references. Providing instructions to authors was associated with improved reporting of ethics requirements in one study and fewer errors in references in two studies, but no difference was seen in the quality of abstracts in one randomised controlled trial. Structuring generally improved the quality of abstracts, but increased their length. The reference accuracy studies showed a median citation error rate of 38% and a median quotation error rate of 20%. Surprisingly few studies have evaluated the effects of technical editing rigorously. However there is some evidence that the 'package' of technical editing used by biomedical journals does improve papers. A substantial number of references in biomedical articles are cited or quoted inaccurately.

Accuracy of references in general surgical journals — An old problem revisited

Reference errors in biomedicals journals are well documented. Increasing use of electronic databases and bibliographic software may change the nature and frequency of errors. To study the current incidence of reference errors in four major general surgical journals. Seventy-five references were randomly selected from original articles published in one issue of each of four general surgical journals. For each reference, ease of retrieval on PubMed and the presence of citation errors were noted. Two observers independently reviewed each reference for quotation errors. Of the 300 selected references, 261 from indexed English language biomedical journals were analysed. Retrieval from PubMed was impossible or difficult in six instances, giving a major citation error rate of 2.3%. Overall (major and minor) citation error rate was 11.1%. Of the 258 references that could be retrieved, 20 (7.8%) had quotation errors, 80% of which were considered major. The overall citation error rate was significantly different across the four journals. There was moderate correlation between quotation error rate and number of references in each original article. Errors in references still appear in current surgical literature. Solutions to address this problem have been discussed.

The Ombudsman: Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers of Knowledge?

The prevalence of faulty citations impedes the growth of scientific knowledge. Faulty citations include omissions of relevant papers, incorrect references, and quotation errors that misreport findings. We discuss key studies in these areas. We then examine citations to “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys,” one of the most frequently cited papers from the Journal of Marketing Research, to illustrate these issues. This paper is especially useful in testing for quotation errors because it provides specific operational recommendations on adjusting for nonresponse bias; therefore, it allows us to determine whether the citing papers properly used the findings. By any number of measures, those doing survey research fail to cite this paper and, presumably, make inadequate adjustments for nonresponse bias. Furthermore, even when the paper was cited, 49 of the 50 studies that we examined reported its findings improperly. The inappropriate use of statistical-significance testing led researchers to conclude that nonresponse bias was not present in 76 percent of the studies in our sample. Only one of the studies in the sample made any adjustment for it. Judging from the original paper, we estimate that the study researchers should have predicted nonresponse bias and adjusted for 148 variables. In this case, the faulty citations seem to have arisen either because the authors did not read the original paper or because they did not fully understand its implications. To address the problem of omissions, we recommend that journals include a section on their websites to list all relevant papers that have been overlooked and show how the omitted paper relates to the published paper. In general, authors should routinely verify the accuracy of their sources by reading the cited papers. For substantive findings, they should attempt to contact the authors for confirmation or clarification of the results and methods. This would also provide them with the opportunity to enquire about other relevant references. Journal editors should require that authors sign statements that they have read the cited papers and, when appropriate, have attempted to verify the citations.

The Ombudsman: Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers of Knowledge?

(With Commentary and Reply) The prevalence of faulty citations impedes the growth of scientific knowledge. Faulty citations include omissions of relevant papers, incorrect references, and quotation errors that misreport findings. We discuss key studies in these areas. We then examine citations to Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys, one of the most frequently cited papers from the Journal of Marketing Research, to illustrate these issues. This paper is especially useful in testing for quotation errors because it provides specific operational recommendations on adjusting for nonresponse bias; therefore, it allows us to determine whether the citing papers properly used the findings. By any number of measures, those doing survey research fail to cite this paper and, presumably, make inadequate adjustments for nonresponse bias. Furthermore, even when the paper was cited, 49 of the 50 studies that we examined reported its findings improperly. The inappropriate use of statistical-significance testing led researchers to conclude that nonresponse bias was not present in 76 percent of the studies in our sample. Only one of the studies in the sample made any adjustment for it. Judging from the original paper, we estimate that the study researchers should have predicted nonresponse bias and adjusted for 148 variables. In this case, the faulty citations seem to have arisen either because the authors did not read the original paper or because they did not fully understand its implications. To address the problem of omissions, we recommend that journals include a section on their websites to list all relevant papers that have been overlooked and show how the omitted paper relates to the published paper. In general, authors should routinely verify the accuracy of their sources by reading the cited papers. For substantive findings, they should attempt to contact the authors for confirmation or clarification of the results and methods. This would also provide them with the opportunity to enquire about other relevant references. Journal editors should require that authors sign statements that they have read the cited papers and, when appropriate, have attempted to verify the citations.

Quotation error, citation copying, and ant extinctions in Madeira

Many authors have written about how exotic ants invaded the Atlantic islands of Madeira and negatively impacted or even completely exterminated its native ants, despite the lack of firsthand observations concerning such impact. I examine how quotation error (misrepresentation of previous work) and citation copying (citing unexamined publications referred to by others) led to the origin and spread of the erroneous story of ant extinctions in Madeira. Quotation error and citation copying may be more common than most scientists realize, particularly when authors cite references that are written in languages they do not understand.